for the sake of an updates to this, I didn't get 100% on that topology test. I got 85%, which was the third best score. I finally scored the highest possible final grade on that subject, so I'm satisfied. fuck I love algebraic topology so much and I think she loves me
oh and I scored fucking 54% on the analysis test. I think I had a mental orgasm when I found out about that lmao it felt so good. I finished the course with a grade of 4 (idk if it's universal, so 2=the lowest, failed, 5=the highest) which is the best I ever got in the analysis course
28 V 2022
topology and analysis tests are over, both went I think alright
if I don't get 100% from topo I'm going to be very frustrated, because I studied hard and acquired deep understanding of the material – so far as to be able to hold a lecture for my classmate about any topic
analysis ughhh if I get ≥40% I will be overjoyed. but that's just the specifics of this subject, you study super hard and seem to be entirely ready, you solve all of the problems in prep and then best you can do is 40%. my best score so far was 42%, so anything more than that will be my lifetime record lmao, I want this so bad. I solved two problems entirely I think, which should give 40% already, and some pieces from two more, chances are I get 50%, which would be absolutely amazing
here are some pictures from me transforming math into an art project
stokes theorem
topology
I was thinking about how annoying I find what people say to me when I tell them that I'm not happy with how I'm doing at math. their first idea is to tell me how great I am and how all I do is good enough and shit like that. it doesn't help, it just feels like I am not being taken seriously. when I barely pass anything, am I really supposed to believe that everything is actually good? it feels like they skip getting to know my situation and just tell me what they would tell anyone, automatic
when I try to calm myself down and think something that will keep me going I don't try to force myself to be happy, fuck that, not being content with one's achievements is very fine, I believe not being happy all the time is fully natural and all that positivity feels so fake
instead what seems to work is asking myself where the rational threshold of being ok with how I'm doing is. the thing is I will never be satisfied, whatever I have, I always want more. but I can set the limits in advance and that stops me from falling into self-loathing loops
although what has really changed the game for me was getting a few good grades, finally I am achieving something, anything. people tell me that I should learn to be alright without this external reliance on achievements but how am I supposed to do that when the source of my low moods is precisely getting less than I want? I don't understand why I should brainwash myself into thinking that this is actually not what I want. the trick here is to separate the goal-orientedness from the sense of self-worth. the groundbreaking realization of mine was figuring out that I believe I deserve more than I get, that's why I am unhappy. so now that I am getting what I think what I deserve I obviously feel much better
hairy ball theorem, stokes theorem, poincaré duality, nullstellensatz, idk too much to choose one
What is your favourite mathematical theorem? I'm personally torn between the compactness theorem for first-order logic, and the fundamental theorem of Galois theory.
“A lot of math grad school is reading books and papers and trying to understand what’s going on. The difficulty is that reading math is not like reading a mystery thriller, and it’s not even like reading a history book or a New York Times article.
The main issue is that, by the time you get to the frontiers of math, the words to describe the concepts don’t really exist yet. Communicating these ideas is a bit like trying to explain a vacuum cleaner to someone who has never seen one, except you’re only allowed to use words that are four letters long or shorter.
What can you say?
“It is a tool that does suck up dust to make what you walk on in a home tidy.”
That’s certainly better than nothing, but it doesn’t tell you everything you might want to know about a vacuum cleaner. Can you use a vacuum cleaner to clean bookshelves? Can you use a vacuum cleaner to clean a cat? Can you use a vacuum cleaner to clean the outdoors?
The authors of the papers and books are trying to communicate what they’ve understood as best they can under these restrictions, and it’s certainly better than nothing, but if you’re going to have to work with vacuum cleaners, you need to know much more.
Fortunately, math has an incredibly powerful tool that helps bridge the gap. Namely, when we come up with concepts, we also come up with very explicit symbols and notation, along with logical rules for manipulating them. It’s a bit like being handed the technical specifications and diagrams for building a vacuum cleaner out of parts.
The upside is that now you (in theory) can know 100% unambiguously what a vacuum cleaner can or cannot do. The downside is that you still have no clue what the pieces are for or why they are arranged the way they are, except for the cryptic sentence, “It is a tool that does suck up dust to make what you walk on in a home tidy.”
OK, so now you’re a grad student, and your advisor gives you an important paper in the field to read: “A Tool that does Suck Dust.” The introduction tells you that “It is a tool that does suck up dust to make what you walk on in a home tidy,” and a bunch of other reasonable but vague things. The bulk of the paper is technical diagrams and descriptions of a vacuum cleaner. Then there are some references: “How to use air flow to suck up dust.” “How to use many a coil of wire to make a fan spin very fast.” “What you get from the hole in the wall that has wire in it.”
So, what do you do? Technically, you sit at your desk and think. But it’s not that simple. First, you’re like, lol, that title almost sounds like it could be sexual innuendo. Then you read the introduction, which pleasantly tells you what things are generally about, but is completely vague about the important details.
Then you get to the technical diagrams and are totally confused, but you work through them piece by piece. You redo many of the calculations on your own just to double check that you’ve really understood what’s going on. Sometimes, the calculations that you redo come up with something stupid, and then you have to figure out what you’ve understood incorrectly, and then reread that part of the technical manual to figure things out. Except sometimes there was a typo in the paper, so that’s what screwed things up for you.
After a while, things finally click, and you finally understand what a vacuum cleaner is. In fact, you actually know much more: You’ve now become one of the experts on vacuum cleaners, or at least on this particular kind of vacuum cleaner, and you know a good fraction of the details on how it works. You’re feeling pretty proud of yourself, even though you’re still a far shot from your advisor: They understand all sorts of other kinds of vacuum cleaners, even Roombas, and, in addition to their work on vacuum cleaners, they’re also working on a related but completely different project about air conditioning systems.
You are filled with joy that you can finally talk on par with your advisor, at least on this topic, but there is a looming dark cloud on the horizon: You still need to write a thesis.
So, you think about new things that you can do with vacuum cleaners. So, first, you’re like: I can use a vacuum cleaner to clean bookshelves! That’d be super-useful! But then you do a Google Scholar search and it turns out that someone else did that like ten years ago.
OK, your next idea: I can use a vacuum cleaner to clean cats! That’d also be super-useful. But, alas, a bit more searching in the literature reveals that someone tried that, too, but they didn’t get good results. You’re a confident young grad student, so you decide that, armed with some additional techniques that you happen to know, you might fix the problems that the other researcher had and get vacuuming cats to work. You spend several months on it, but, alas, it doesn’t get you any further.
OK, so then, after more thinking and doing some research on extension cords, you think it would be feasible to use a vacuum cleaner to clean the outdoors. You look in the literature, and it turns out that nobody’s ever thought of doing that! You proudly tell this idea to your advisor, but they do some back of the envelope calculations that you don’t really understand and tell you that vacuuming the outdoors is unlikely to be very useful. Something about how a vacuum cleaner is too small to handle the outdoors and that we already know about other tools that are much better equipped for cleaning streets and such.
This goes on for several years, and finally you write a thesis about how if you turn a vacuum cleaner upside-down and submerge the top end in water, you can make bubbles!
Your thesis committee is unsure of how this could ever be useful, but it seems pretty cool and bubbles are pretty, so they think that maybe something useful could come out of it eventually. Maybe.
And, indeed, you are lucky! After a hundred years or so, your idea (along with a bunch of other ideas) leads to the development of aquarium air pumps, an essential tool in the rapidly growing field of research on artificial goldfish habitats. Yay!”
"based and purple pilled" with deleted vowels. the first adhd medication I tried was life changing, I could finally study and function (half-)properly, and the pills are purple, hence my version of "based and red pilled", which I probably don't have to explain
Guys please reply to this with what your url means or references I’m really curious
Venn diagrams that have a number of sets that AREN'T prime numbers (except 1, but it's trivial) cannot be rotationally symmetrical, so here are a couple real 6-set venn diagrams.
Someone PLEASE use one of these to make a diagram. I'm begging. i need to see it with my own eyes.
in my country having a diagnosis is highly confidential, too. there is no such thing as "the government knowing about your diagnoses" unless you get evaluated for disability documentation (I have no idea how to translate this to english), which is your choice. besides, who knows when the diagnosis will be useful? waiting for a diagnostic appointment takes several months and is very expensive, so taking an opportunity to sort this thing out when it's possible is good. depending on where someone lives, it can be very harmful to say that having a diagnosis somehow creates disadvantages
at my university the support program for people with asd has been introduced two years ago. it took me almost a year to get everything done, a year of unnecessary suffering. treatment for depression with or wihout adhd can be completely different and having it on paper that in your personal circumstances ssri might not work can save so much time. when someone suspects adhd and the situation calls for introducing medication, it's nice to be able to try right away, not wait several months for a diagnosis. those are just some practical examples of how you never know when diagnosis might be useful
and the validation reason, yeah, that too, it's beneficial to have someone work with you through that stuff. moreover, with professional support there comes someone suggesting solutions and forms of help that one might not even thought of. there are shitty doctors, but there are good ones too, and I think we should talk more about how to find the right ones instead of demonizing getting help
By the way. Before you rush to get a professional diagnosis for a Brain Thing you should really weigh your options. Like do you just want to "prove it" or will this actually give you access to treatment you can't have otherwise? Are the treatment options available worth having the government know you're neurodivergent? Because sometimes it's better to keep things off the record because unfortunately we still live in a very deeply ableist society and you might not want to have more real material oppression stacked against you than you have to
Mathematicians be like:
Def 1.1: A function f is fucked-up iff it is not Lebesgue measurable
Def 1.2: A function is evil iff its graph has non-integer Hausdorff dimension.
Exercise 1: Prove that there exist fucked-up and evil functions
The chili plant made a deal with their God to only be consumed by things that could spread its seeds and fly. The chili received capsaicin, making itself painful to eat for mammals, but not birds, and all was well for the chili.
Then the human shows up, tastes it, and likes the pain. So now there's this flightless fucking mammal eating the chili. Like not even a fruit bat or anything, a flightless fucking mammal chomping on the chili.
What the fucking shit, God, cried the chili, I specifically requested the opposite of this.
Now hold on, wait a moment, replied the God who talks to plants but has no idea what the fuck these apes are going to do next. It might be something cool.
And in a flash of a second, in barely fraction of the time that chili took to develop capsaicin, the humans went from walking across land bridges and rowing little boats across small waters, into building ships that could cross oceans. More humans tasted the chili, and liked the pain. They took the seeds with them, and planted it elsewhere.
See? They spread the seeds.
They're still not flying, said the chili, still feeling insulted and betrayed.
But before the conversation was over, the humans were still not done fucking around and nowhere close to finding out. The ships became machines, and another machine was invented, capable of flight. Now, not only were the humans farming chili on continents far too far away for any of the birds that originally ate it could dream of flying, but the chili flew with them to lands where it could possibly not grow, so that humans over there could also eat it and enjoy the pain.
You see? They spread your seeds and fly.
It doesn't count as keeping a promise if you only manage it by a fucking accident, said the chili, still somewhat insulted. But nonetheless, the chili thrived.
funfact: in poland nobody really cares about eye contact, maybe other than people who want to have an intimate conversation with you like you'd have during a date or something
I was genuinely suprised when I learned that avoiding eye contact is a symptom of autism, because I didn't notice anybody ever trying to make it. I started paying attention to this whole thing after my diagnosis, where the doctor asked if I always look at the walls while talking to people. it turns out that people indeed are trying to look into my eyes even during the most mundane and routine interactions, but nobody (other than my now ex boyfriend who was so sad when he found out that I perceive eye contact as a threat) ever pointed it out as something that I should do. but then I see (presumably american or just non-polish) people talking about being offended by someone not making eye contact and I experience a massive cultural shock lol
girl i am not looking at your tits i prommy i just hate eye contact
⁕ pure math undergrad ⁕ in love with anything algebraic ⁕
292 posts